ous, that unless they closed up all questions with regard to the arrears, they would not be giving the measure fair play. This bill, therefore, directed the Lord-lieutenant to remit to the Clergy the instalments due from them, in respect of the loan; and the residue of the million was to be applied in satisfaction of the arrears, according to the claims of the spiritual tithe owners, which had been accruing during the last four years.

It was not to be supposed that Lord Brougham would allow the appropriation clause to be thus disposed of in silence. He had not looked, he protested, to see the day," when appropriation should be given to the winds, as if the thing had never been talked of; as if it had never been the means of seating one ministry, and unseating another. So much for appropriation! The chapter of appropriation, its origin, history, flourishing, decline, and fall-how in the fulness of time, and having answered every good purpose, has it been gently laid aside, and put to rest without a single requiem sung over its grave!"

The bill was soon disposed of in the House of Lords, and was read a third time on the 9th of August, Lord Clancarty alone, on that occasion, raising a dissentient voice. In connexion with Irish affairs we may here notice a discussion which took place in the House of Commons on the customary grant of 8,9281. to Maynooth college on account of one or two incidents that it occasioned. The grant was opposed by Colonels Sibthorpe, Perceval, and Verner.

Mr. O'Connell remarked that he was sorry that the three gallant colonels opposite, the Church

militant, he supposed, of the House, had not courage to divide against the grant; for he (Mr. O'Connell) should certainly have divided with them; since this grant was decidedly a violation of the voluntary principle, which in matters of religion he should always advocate.

Lord Morpeth upon this occasion adverted to certain doctrines, which had lately become fashionable at Oxford, as having themselves a strong savour of Romanism. To this effect he read some extracts from a book which he said, he was given to understand proceeded from that University; entitled "The Remains of the Rev. R. H. Fronde."

Some of the passages quoted by the noble Lord are undoubtedly singular, as proceeding from a clergyman of the Established Church. We subjoin them in a note, * only observing that the work in question is understood to have made its appearance under the editorial sanction of one of the

• "You will be shocked at my avowal, that I am, every day, becoming a less and less loyal son of the Reformation. It appears to be plain, that in all matters, which seem to be indifferent, or even doubtful, we should conform our pracpreserved its traditionary practices untices to those of the Church, which has changed." "I think people are injudicious, who talk against the Roman Catholics, for worshipping Saints, and honouring the Virgin and images, &c.; These things may perhaps be idolatrous I cannot make up my mind about it." "Your trumpery principle, about the scripture being the sole rule of faith in fundamentals, (I nauseate the word) is but a mutilated edition, without the breadth, and axiomatic character of the original." Really I hate the Reformation, and the reformers more and more, and have almost made up my afloat is the udongopnтns, of the Revemind, that the rationalist spirit they set lations.

"

principal theologians of the University of Oxford- himself the leader, and almost the founder of a great and increasing party in the church. Mr. W. Gladstone rose to vindicate the University of Oxford, from the insinuations of Lord Morpeth. He had, he said, "never heard a speech more cruelly unjust than that made by the noble Lord." If the noble Lord would read the preface of the book he had quoted, he would find, that the editor expressly guarded himself against being supposed to entertain the opinions of the author, stating, that he gave it to the world as the singular production of a remarkable mind.

We may now revert to the passage of the Irish Poor-law Bill through the House of Lords-the last of those three great measures which occupied so much of the attention of Parliament.

Lord Melbourne moved its second reading on the 21st of May. Earl Fitzwilliam announced his intention to vote against it. He stated himself to be opposed to the whole principle of Poor-laws. But this bill could never be carried into effect. Moreover, it was not an Irish bill; it was not a bill desired either by the landed interrests, the middling gentry, or the poorest classes of Ireland. He did not believe if any gentleman searched the files of all the provincial newspapers in Ireland-if he consulted the accounts of all county meetings-if he consulted all the appeals made to the constituency at the last general election, or upon any other occasion

he did not believe, that there would be found any occasion upon which any person, desirous of conciliating the good will of his audience, addressed them as a supporter of VOL. LXXX.

the introduction of a poor-law into Ireland.

The Duke of Wellington recommended their Lordships to give the bill a second reading. He agreed with Lord Melbourne in thinking that there never was a country in which poverty existed as it exists in Ireland. He held a high situation in Ireland thirty years agoand from that time to this, there had scarcely elapsed a single year, in which the Government had not entertained most serious apprehensions of actual famine. He did not expect to cure the poverty of Ireland by this bill; "no, my Lords," continued his Grace, "that which I expect from this measure, which I trust your Lordships will so amend as to be able to pass it, is, that it will improve the social relations of Ireland. It will, I trust, induce the great landed proprietors in Ireland, whether resident there or not, to look after their properties, and to afford encouragement and protection to those residing upon their estates. I do not expect the prevalence of a better state of things in Ireland in consequence of this measure permitting confinement in the workhouse; nor from its doling out relief to vagrants and mendicants; but from its improving the social relation between landlord and tenant." The noble Duke added, that he was strongly opposed to the establishment of a law of settlement. But he trusted that, in this measure, care would be taken that the parishes from which persons were sent to the workhouses should pay their expenses.

After a speech from the Marquess of Londonderry, in opposition to the bill, Lord Lyndhurst proceeded to address the House.

[L]

Having adverted to the almost universal unpopularity of the bill in Ireland, he cautioned their Lordships against setting themselves up as better judges than the Irish people themselves of what was best calculated to promote the interests of that nation. He had heard it said, "Ireland must have a poor-law; let her have the benefit of an experiment." He should not be unwilling to try it, provided he thought that they could, in the event of failure, return to their original situation. He then proceeded to examine the proposed plan. Nothing could be more objectionable than the extraordinary, the unprecedented powers and the enormous patronage vested in the three commissioners sitting at Somerset House. What could be more absurd, he asked, than to make the partial success of the English experiment the model of an Irish law? The conditions of the two countries were most dissimilar.

The principle of the English act was a most simple one-it was this, that no man should perish for want, and that there should be a workhouse to receive him; but at the same time it was provided that the moral discipline should be such that an able-bodied labourer would prefer going out to earn a subsistence by the sweat of his brow, to remaining in the workhouse. That system had worked well; and so far the test was a good one. But what an assumption was there here! It was proposed to apply the principle of the English Act to Ireland, on the assumption that a man, who was willing to labour, could obtain labour, otherwise it was no test whatever. Was the destitution of the people of Ireland attributable to an unwillingness to work?

Could they say it was, when they found a man travelling from the West a distance of six hundred miles on foot, and in due season retiring to his home, his journey having been made for the purpose of earning a few pounds; and when during his absence he had most parsimoniously submitted to the greatest privations, in order that he might be able to save a small sum? What was the cause of the destitution of Ireland? It was not that the people were unwilling to workit was not that they were basely inclined-but there was no labour for them. What, then, became of the test? Was it not obvious that to make a provision for the destitute poor they would require a measure of impracticable extent?

The demands upon the landlords, in consequence of this bill, would swallow up their entire rentals, in many instances. As to the workhouses, they would be looked upon as prisons. If, as was likely to be the case, the public mind in Ireland were to be agitated against the Bill, the whole machinery of the measure would be blown awav. In conclusion, however, Lord Lyndhurst intimated his intention of voting for the second reading, in the hope that it might be brought into a better state in Committee.

Lord Radnor spoke briefly in support of the Bill, and Marquess Clanricarde very strongly against it.

The Earl of Devon, after mentioning the immense number of persons unable to obtain a livelihood in Ireland, took a very sanguine view of the probable operation of the Bill in removing this evil. The first thing they had to do, he said, in this state of the matter, was to endeavour as far as

they could, to ascertain with precision, who were the persons really deserving of support. He, for one, was satisfied that with this view, no other test could be supplied which would work with equal accuracy and efficiency as that of the workhouse. Having then discovered who were fitting objects for relief under the Bill, and having provided for the extension of that relief in the best manner they could, it would next become their duty to turn their attention towards the means of securing employment for the able-bodied labourers who were destitute solely from their inability to obtain employment. It was his firm belief, that the Bill in itself would give to all classes in Ireland a great stimulus, and that employment would be generated by its mere enactment; but he also fully expected that the present was not to be the only measure introduced with the view of meeting the existing destitution of the Irish poor, but that it would be speedily followed up by others to encourage and give facilities to the undertaking of and carrying on great public works in that country. A great deal had been said about the pressure of taxation which would be occasioned by the measure; but if he were only to look at the question in a pounds shillings and pence point of view, he should strongly support it; for he was convinced that every pound he should have to pay under it would be eventually repaid by the great improvement in the land, which must result from the enactment of the Bill.

Lord Brougham predicted the entire failure of the plan. The Government being called upon for a poor-law, had looked out for the

very worst, and most indefensible features of the old English system.

The Marquess of Lansdowne remarked, that it was impossible to apply capital profitably in a country where a small part of the people could deprive large numbers of the property in their own labour, which every man has a right to enjoy. He knew that the bill could not effect a cure for this evil, but he thought, that if even a small portion of the people were taken out of the market, and removed from that competition, which existed with regard to land, much good would be thereby effected. The bill was necessary on account of the clearing of estates, which was going on in some cases too rapidly, but in others with due caution. Such a measure as this would deter the people from bidding as they now did for land, and from feeling so much discontent when ejected by their landlord.

The Marquess of Westmeath opposed the bill.

The House divided on the second reading. Contents 149; notcontents 20: majority 129.

On the 28th of May, Lord Roden, on the motion for going into committee, moved that the bill be committed that day six months, but afterwards withdrew his amendment.

Earl Fitzwilliam then moved an amendment to the 41st clause, by which he limited the relief under the bill to bodily infirmity, age, &c. He was supported by Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci. It was the opinion of the latter nobleman, that the bill would be eminently mischievous. It would endanger in a ten-fold degree the peace of the country, would be fatal to the happiness of the lower classes, and alienate the affections

of those whom it was its avowed object to conciliate.

On the 31st Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci came down with an amendment of his own, empowering the guardians to relieve in poorhouses "all destitute persons who are either incurably lame or blind, or sick, or labouring under permanent bodily infirmity;" also all orphan children, being destitute or deserted.

The Duke of Wellington opposed this amendment, together with the Lord Chancellor, Lords Aberdeen, Cloncurry, Radnor, Lansdowne, Mulgrave and Melbourne: while the Earl of Chichester, Lord Carbery, Earls Fitzwilliam and Glengall, and Lord Brougham supported it. The ministers carried the original clause by a majority of 107 to 41.

This clause embodied the main principle of the bill, which having received some amendments in detail at the hands of their Lordships passed that House on the 9th of July. The numbers being on the division, content 93; notcontent 31; majority 62. The enactment of this measure was by far the most important of the session; indeed a more arduous and momentous experiment than that which it involved, is perhaps unknown in the annals of our legislation.

It may be recollected that within the last few years, two commissioners, Mr. Austen, and Mr. George Lewis, were despatched to Malta, for the purpose of investigating the grievances complained of by the natives of that island. In 1835, a petition was presented to the House of Commons, and representations were made to the Colonial department, enumerating various articles of complaint on the

part of the Maltese subjects of the Crown. It was contended, among other points, that the English Government was not sufficiently careful of the interests of Malta, and had imposed upon the people institutions, for which they were ill-adapted. These complaints were referred by the Colonial-office to the local government, who did not report upon the subject to Lord Glenelg's satisfaction, or in manner calculated, in his opinion, to satisfy the wishes of the Maltese people. It seems to have been first proposed to refer the subject to a Committee of the House of Commons, but, in the end, a local commission was deemed preferable, and Messrs. Austin and Lewis, were appointed accordingly.

One preliminary question, which these commissioners were required to investigate, concerned the extent to which more liberal institutions might be conceded to Malta, having regard to its importance, as a naval and military station.

The commissioners having returned to England, and made their report, the Earl of Ripon, on the 3rd of May, called the attention of the House of Lords to the subject. He contended that the commission was originally needless, and that no useful result had proceeded from its labours. The commissioners had presented the country with a report of fifteen pages on the liberty of the press in Malta, which as Lord Ripon maintained, could have been as well drawn up by them at home.

After ridiculing somewhat unsparingly the earlier part of this document, Lord Ripon proceeded to say, that the commissioners had come to the conclusion, that the existing censorship on the press ought to be removed. At the same